Statement–Argument — Should a major part of school examinations be made objective type? Arguments: I. No. Objective tests do not assess a student's ability to express and reason in extended form. II. Yes. This is the best method to assess ability and knowledge.

Introduction / Context:
Assessment design must align with learning outcomes. Objective items (MCQs) can test breadth, recall, and some application, but they are limited at capturing written explanation, argumentation, and creativity. Claims that any one format is “the best” for all abilities are typically too sweeping.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy: Make most of school exams objective type.
• Arg I: Objects that expression and extended reasoning are under-assessed by objective formats.
• Arg II: Declares objective type “the best” method for assessing ability and knowledge.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument is precise and recognizes assessment validity. MCQs can be highly reliable, but validity for expressive skills is limited compared to essays, projects, or orals. An absolute superlative claim (“the best”) is suspect without qualification and generally weak in reasoning tests.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Arg I identifies a genuine validity gap: expression, structure, and argument development are not well measured by objective items. This is directly relevant and strong.2) Arg II is overly absolute; assessment depends on target competencies. Without nuance (e.g., blended models), calling objective tests “the best” for overall ability/knowledge is not supportable. Hence, II is weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Most balanced frameworks use mixed formats: MCQs for coverage and reliability; constructed responses for depth and expression. This corroborates I and undermines II’s absolutism.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II,” “either,” or “both” mischaracterize the strengths/limits of objective assessments.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming reliability equals validity; overlooking varied learning outcomes.

Final Answer:
If only Argument I is strong.